Category Archives: Scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Jeremy Hunt didn’t tell Standards Commissioner he had bought 7 flats from an “a cquaintance” who was also a Tory donor

“Jeremy Hunt received a “bulk discount” on seven flats bought from a Conservative donor, the Guardian can disclose, as parliament’s watchdog opened an investigation into the health secretary’s admission that he breached money laundering rules.

The health secretary was forced to apologise for failing to declare his part-ownership of a company, which bought the luxury seaside flats in Southampton.

Kathryn Stone, parliament’s commissioner for standards, received a complaint about Hunt on Friday. The commissioner’s website confirms that Hunt is now under investigation.

Guardian inquiries established that the 82-flat block, called Alexandra Wharf, was developed by Nicolas James Group, a south coast property firm owned and chaired by businessman and Conservative donor Nicolas James Roach.

Neither Hunt nor Roach agreed to disclose the value of the deal but a source close to the health secretary said he had received a “bulk discount” for buying multiple apartments.

A spokesperson for Roach said that all sales at Alexandra Wharf were at “open market value”, adding that the businessman’s political donations had been properly declared on the Electoral Commission website.

They added that the pair had known each other for “several years” but had no business relationship beyond the purchase of the flats.

A spokesperson for Hunt said: “The owner of the development is a long-standing acquaintance.

“Jeremy paid standard market rates which would have been available to anyone else making an equivalent purchase.

“As Jeremy has been clear from the outset, the rental income from these properties will be donated to charity.”

Roach has made more than £50,000 in donations to Hunt’s South West Surrey constituency office since 2011, mostly in the form of complimentary venue hire.

The pair were pictured together in 2011 at a party to launch a £60m hotel in Guildford, Surrey, that was developed by Nicolas James Group.

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman for the committee on standards in public life said: “In terms of public perception of ministerial priorities, Hunt seems more concerned with maximising his personal interests rather than ensuring that there are good public services.

“On a local level, there does seem to be an incestuous relationship between a local donor and a local politician in a way which will make the public uneasy.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/18/jeremy-hunt-investigated-breach-money-laundering-rules-luxury-flats

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Yet another Conservative-run Council seems to be facing bankruptcy – and this time it’s in a Tory Minister’s OWN Constituency

“There is a massive budgetary disparity at the heart of Tory-run Worcestershire County Council. The council, which includes Housing and Communities Secretary Sajid Javid’s constituency, has, it seems, sought to bury a damning review of its finances carried out by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).

Worcestershire’s forecast increase in demand for services was 2.5 times larger than its expected growth in resources. The CIPFA has warned the council that they face a £26.4m hole in their finances in 2018-2019, which looks to rise to £60.1m in 2020-2021.

The shadow Housing and Communities Secretary, Andrew Gwynne MP has noticed the pertinent similarities between the situation in Worcestershire CC and Tory-run Northamptonshire County Council’s bankruptcy:

“This Government has utterly failed local government, forcing many authorities to struggle to maintain basic services after cutting their funding to the bone. The National Audit Office and the IFS are calling for a change in direction, one of the Government’s own councils has gone bankrupt, and now with this mess happening in the Secretary of State’s own Council – how much longer can Sajid Javid ignore this crisis?

Almost eight years of Tory austerity clearly isn’t working. It didn’t work for Northamptonshire, and it’s not working for Worcestershire. We need to elect as many Labour councillors as possible on 3 May to stand up to the Conservatives’ cuts.”

A reduction of 47% in the council’s usable reserves over the last 5 years, as well as overspending on children’s services, has seen the Worcestershire CC looming over a prospective £60m black hole.”

https://evolvepolitics.com/yet-another-conservative-run-council-is-facing-bankruptcy-and-this-time-its-in-a-tory-ministers-own-constituency/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Apr 2018

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

A DCC meeting tomorrow that will show if democracy is dead or alive at the council

From the Facebook page of Claire Wright:

“PROCEDURES COMMITTEE TO DEBATE RELAXING PUBLIC SPEAKING RULES, TOMORROW
Devon County Council’s Procedures Committee will consider my proposal to relax public speaking rules at committee meetings, at tomorrow morning’s meeting.

I asked for the agenda item, following the January Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting, where I was prevented from asking a question of Dr Mike Slot, Sidmouth GP, who had addressed the meeting about his concern that care at home may not be working as effectively as it should.
Care at home is the system which replaced the loss of many community hospital beds, 72 of which closed locally last year.

Across Devon, around 250 community hospital beds have been shut since 2012.
Up until 2016 there was no public speaking at scrutiny committee meetings which was quite wrong, especially for Health Scrutiny as the committee’s remit is to take up matters of public concern.

The lack of public speaking resulted in frustration from members of the public who heckled and shouted when they heard the NHS representatives say things they disagreed with, or believed were untrue.

In February 2016, Devon County Council unanimously backed my proposal to bring in public speaking at scrutiny meetings…. and they have functioned much more democratically as a result, following this decision.

However, there was a problem in January, where I was prevented from asking a question from a Sidmouth GP who had addressed the committee with concerns about care at home on the basis it was contrary to standing orders.

The upshot of the refusal was that the committee would have simply have allowed Dr Slot to walk out the room without further information or investigation, if I hadn’t then proposed a spotlight review into the issue.
So that’s the background to tomorrow’s meeting.

I have also asked for some flexibility on the issue of members of the public needing to register four days ahead of the meeting to speak.

Again, at the January meeting, this rule resulted in one member of the public speaking, leaving other members of the public who hadn’t managed to register in advance, unable to speak! There was nine minutes left of time too. What a waste of an opportunity to hear members of the public’s views.
To me these are simple issues and matters of common sense. We need to enable members of the public to participate, not get stuck behind the bureaucracy. I will see how the rest of the committee views it…”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Independent Councillors, Inequality, Scrutiny, Transparency

Maybe (surely?) we should be doing this in East Devon?

“Date for your diary – 12 June 2018 in Devonport Guildhall we will be holding a community meeting about local decision making, the role of councils, social enterprise etc. Indra Adnan will be leading the event with input from Transition Town, Real Ideas Organisation, Peter Macfadyen author of Flatpack Democracy and Buckfastleigh Independent Group. Full details to be announced shortly.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny, Transparency

When Northampton County Council went “bankrupt” – Inspectors’ comments on scrutiny an “how others see you”

…”The way that NCC went about its scrutiny function brought very strong words from the inspectors. They noted that a number of councillors told them that they had been refused information. They cite a specific example which I extract below:

Perhaps the clearest demonstration of this unnecessary secrecy during the inspection took place at the Cabinet meeting on 13th February 2018.

3.80 Agenda item 11 was titled Capital Asset Exploitation. This was in fact a proposal to sell and lease back the recently completed HQ building at One Angel Square. This disposal is a potential £50m in value so it would be reasonable to expect a full options appraisal and some clear professional valuation advice as to the likely quantum of proceeds and the ways in which a disposal might be handled to best achieve a best value result. It is likely that much of this information would be exempt information so that there would be a confidential paper appended to the agenda. If that information was not available then it could only be on the basis that it was not being relied on in taking a decision.

3.81 At the meeting a number of questions were raised on these very matters and Cabinet members stated that they were privy to confidential information which supported their recommendation but that it was not available to other members.

3.82 Even if there was a concern about the publishing of confidential information most authorities have protocols and practices which make it possible for key information to be shared and protect the authority. To refuse it outright is just wrong.

Again, during an inspection, it appears that a decision for members to take was incorrectly presented without the necessary evidence.

Lesson 6 – How others see you

A key measure of governance is how well does an authority deal with complaints. During the Inspection the Inspectors commented that most unusually the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman contacted them. He said that NCC was one of the most difficult authorities to engage with both in time to respond and also in terms of approach to complaints handling learning from mistakes and remedying injustice [32].

Here again the point emerges that services may well be worse than they superficially appear, but there could come a time when the council is on the ropes and at that point others come forward and say what they really think. It is always sensible to treat concerns by the Ombudsman as meriting a chief statutory officers’ agenda spot.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34806%3Alocalism-best-value-inspections-and-northamptonshire-county-council&catid=59&Itemid=27

Note: this puts Owl in mind of this what judge said when the Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council Knowle confidential information case was decided in court:

“Correspondence on behalf of the council, rather than ensuring the tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful, including the statement that we had the most legible copies [of the disputed information] possible. A statement which was clearly inaccurate as, subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/election/heads-should-roll-as-judge-criticises-eddc-1-4075293

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Scrutiny

“Bankrupt’ Tory Council Raided £9m Schools Subsidy To Fix Budget”

“A “bankrupt” Tory authority used a £9m fund meant for school improvements in a failed attempt to fill a growing financial black hole, it can be revealed.

Cash-strapped Northamptonshire County Council spent the money to “mitigate” losses in an account used for general everyday spending in 2016, HuffPost UK has found.

The authority has been hit by one of the worst council cash crises in decades, after central government cuts coincided with surging demand for services.

The situation has prompted fears that Northants could become the first of a number of county councils to “fail” as financial pressures mount.

The £9m schools’ funding was meant to be set aside to pay for “future educational improvements within the county”.

It came from a so-called Section 106 (S106) obligation, which are placed on property firms to ensure new developments benefit the whole community.

But an independent review into Northamptonshire’s finances by government inspector Max Caller revealed the “one-off” payment of S106 money was transferred to the council’s general revenue account during the year 2016-17.

Auditors KPMG confirmed in an August 2017 report that the £9m came from funds meant for education improvements and that it was intended to be replaced “through council borrowing”.

County council officials this week declined to elaborate or provide further details. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/northamptonshire-county-council-raided-schools-s106-subsidy-to-fix-budget_uk_5ace394ee4b0648767760786

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Conflict of interest, County councillors, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Comments

1 Comment

Being a councillor: a public service or a feather-bedded job?

“The ceremonial head of a cash-strapped council is set to be given a £2,500 pay rise just weeks after a decision to shut the county’s youth clubs.

A meeting of Gwynedd council’s democratic services committee today recommended that the council chair should see their pay upgraded to “band 1” status.

The role – known in some areas as the county mayor – changes hands every 12 months and involves presiding over full council meetings and representing the authority at various functions in a civic capacity.

At present, the holder is afforded “band 2” status, meaning they would receive £21,800 in 2018/19.

But, if Gwynedd’s full council accepts the committee’s recommendation when it meets on May 3, the chair’s pay will increase to £24,300.

The committee’s findings come just a month after the authority decided to introduce a new youth service model, which will see all 39 existing youth clubs replaced by a single county-wide offering in a bid to save £270,000.

Cllr Charles Wyn Jones, who proposed the pay rise during this morning’s meeting, said: “Having fulfilled the role myself, I know that the council chair usually has to attend at least 40 functions a year, many of which take place in the daytime.

“I feel the title holder should be paid more than the committee chairs, simply due to the number of hours they have to put into the role.

“I know the role only lasts a year, but it involves putting in many hours.”

Cllr Dewi Owen, also a former council chair, echoed his sentiments: “Living in Aberdyfi and having to travel to functions in places such as Bangor, it meant having to stay over in bed and breakfasts and many hours of travel time in order to do the job properly.”

The new council chair, succeeding Cllr Annwen Daniels, will be selected by county councillors next month.

Meanwhile, all 75 Gwynedd councillors will receive a £200 pay rise to £13,600 a year, in line with the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ (IRPW) findings for the 22 Welsh authorities.

Questioning the panel’s findings, Menai Bangor councillor Catrin Wager said: “I do feel that at a time when cuts are being made, an extra £200 for every member is questionable.

“Is there anything we can do apart from accept this?”

In response, democratic services manager Vera Jones confirmed that members could choose to waive the automatic pay rise by informing the authority in writing.

There will be no change in the salaries of the council leader and deputy, which will remain at £48,300 and £33,800 respectively.

Members of the cabinet will be paid £29,300 a year, and £22,300 for committee chairs.

The final decision on member salaries will be formally rubber stamped during Gwynedd’s full council meeting on May 3.”

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/gwynedd-council-pay-rise-chair-14524343

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, NHS (local), Scrutiny

Comments

2 Comments

DCC cabinet refuses to accept decision of Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee and rushes in Accountable Care Organisation without checks and balances

Claire Wright’s blog:

“The all Conservative Devon County Council Cabinet has thrown out its own health watchdog’s unanimous resolution on deferring the implementation of Devon’s Integrated Care System, while a range of assurances were received.

Dozens of objections from members of the public came flooding in at the 22 March Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting and my resolution on the thorny issue, which can be found here –

http://www.claire-wright.org/…/devons_nhs_asked_to_provide_…

… had been backed unanimously by councillors.

A revised resolution that the Cabinet supported yesterday, merely noted that a new system was being set up and everything else was so watered down as to be almost meaningless.

The message was repeated at length that this was not an endorsement but simply noting that it was happening and that progress will be monitored.

I reminded the cabinet of the County Solicitor’s advice to the Health Scrutiny Committee in November that it is unique in scrutiny committees in that we provide a legal check on health services – the only legal check – and that our remit is to take up issues of public concern. And we were flooded with emails of public concern.

I then went through the issues as I saw them.

When summing up, Cabinet member, Andrew Leadbetter, accused me of bringing a set of ‘pre-determined’ proposals to the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee.

This is a serious allegation and I immediately asked him to withdraw it. Leader, and Cabinet Chair, Cllr John Hart, backed me up and Cllr Leadbetter retracted his statement.

I had in fact prepared the proposals during the lunch-hour before the meeting. it is quite permissable (and very common) to conduct business in this way.

There was cross party support for the Health Scrutiny resolution with Cllrs Alan Connett, Brian Greenslade and Rob Hannaford also addressing Cabinet along similar lines.

Here is the Cabinet’s final resolution, which you can compare with my proposals which are set out in yesterday’s post below:

(a) that the original recommendations of the Cabinet (a – d), as outlined in Cabinet Minute *148 and reproduced below, be re-affirmed:

(i) that the key features of an emerging Devon Integrated Care System being a single Integrated Strategic Commissioner, a number of Local Care Partnerships, a Mental Health Care Partnership and shared NHS corporate services, be noted.

(ii) that the proposed arrangements in Devon as set out in paragraph 4 of the Report be endorsed, reporting to the Cabinet and Appointments and Remuneration Committee as necessary.

(iii) that the co-location of NHS and DCC staff within the Integrated Strategic Commissioner, subject to agreement of the business case, be approved; and

(iv) the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee be invited to include Integrated Care System governance in its work programme.

(b) And, in light of the Scrutiny Committees deliberations, Cabinet further RESOLVE

(i) that the Health and Wellbeing Board is reformed to lead new governance arrangements for the development of integrated strategic commissioning of health and social care; and

(ii) that there is continued proactive communication to the public using clear and consistent messaging and where appropriate there will be relevant involvement and engagement.”

Here’s the webcast – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/…/po…/webcast_interactive/325467

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Freedom of Information Act, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Council fails in appeal over FOI request and commercial prejudice”

“Hartlepool Borough Council has lost an appeal against a ruling by the Information Commissioner because it failed to provide evidence of what harm to commercial interests would be done by disclosing material dating from 2005 and relating to the transfer of ownership of Durham Tees Valley Airport.
In the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights), Judge Anisa Dhanji said neither the council nor property firm Peel had shown any convincing reason for keeping private details of the deal they did over the airport.

John Latimer had made a Freedom of Information request for papers relating to how ownership of 75% of the airport came to be transferred by the six Tees Valley local authorities to Peel.

Some information was provided but the council withheld the rest – though it later made further releases – and Latimer took his case to the Commissioner, who ruled in his favour.
Giving judgment in Hartlepool Borough Council v IC & (Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2018] UKFTT 2017_0057 (GRC), Judge Dhanji noted Hartlepool had not put forward any submissions or witness statements for this appeal.

She said: “It is not clear to what extent the council is still relying on prejudice to its own interests, but we entirely agree with the commissioner’s assessment…we do not find that the council has established that disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests,”

Peel’s case asserted that disclosure could weaken its position in negotiations with potential new investors in the airport and could be used by competitors against it.

“What Peel has completely failed to do, however, is to support its assertions with evidence,” the judge said.
“There are no witness statements, and no evidence or even arguments to link the disclosure of any specific aspect of the information with any specific business interests that would or would be likely to be prejudiced by its disclosure.”

Peel had “failed to show the causal link between the disputed information and the claimed prejudice”, the tribunal concluded, ordering Hartlepool to send Latimer the information within 35 days.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Full Judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2018/2017_0057.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Claire Wright, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Privatisation, Scrutiny

Comments

2 Comments

“DCC cabinet decides tomorrow if to back Health Scrutiny resolution over controversial health plans”

Claire Wright’s blog, as she ploughs (with EDA DCC Councillor Martin Shaw) the lonely furrow of integrity and common sense – both sadly lacking in the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee:

“Devon County Council’s cabinet will decide tomorrow whether to back the Health and Adult Scrutiny Committee’s resolution on deferring the implementation of the controversial Integrated Care System, which many local people have huge concerns over.

At the last Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee on 22 March, I proposed the following which was supported by the majority of the committee.

An additional line on a public engagement, was voted down by Conservative councillors:

Here’s what the cabinet will be considering. If it supports the resolution, it will be implemented with immediate effect…..

I will be speaking in support of the resolution tomorrow…… If you are keen to know the outcome or hear the discussion, the meeting is webcast live here – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

(a) record the Committee’s concerns over the emerging Devon Integrated Care System being a single Integrated Strategic Commissioner, a number of Local Care Partnerships, Mental Health Care Partnership and shared NHS corporate services;

(b) defer the implementation of the Integrated Care System process until assurances are provided on governance, funding, the future of social care from a democratic perspective;

(c) recommend Councillor Ackland’s paper and proposals on the reformation of the Health and Wellbeing Board as a sound democratic way forward to provide the necessary governance on a new integrated system;

(d) give assurance that the proposals will not lead to deeper cuts in any part of Devon as a result of the ‘equalisation of funding’; and

(e) provide a copy of the business plan being developed and a summary of views from staff consultations.

For more background on Integrated Care Systems see my blog
post –

http://www.claire-wright.org/…/devons_nhs_asked_to_provide_…

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sovereignty, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“THE COUNCILS SELLING LAND WORTH MILLIONS TO OFFSHORE COMPANIES”

“Councils are selling off land: vast swathes of it. It’s estimated that 10 million hectares of public land have been sold in the past four decades, and sales are accelerating. In Gloucestershire, where I live, the council has sold £100 million of land since April 2011 and recently announced plans to sell up to £53 million more.

Who’s buying it all? There has been little press coverage of this fire sale of land, and councils are cagey about reporting it. To find out more, I wrote code to compare a mid-2017 version of the Land Registry’s Corporate & Commercial Ownership data, which lists what UK corporate bodies own, with the latest Overseas Companies Ownership data, which lists what overseas companies own. If titles move from the first dataset to the second, that indicates they’ve been sold to an overseas company.

I found that since summer 2017, local authorities, government bodies and universities have sold public land worth more than £100 million to companies in Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Malta and Cayman Islands. This is despite David Cameron promising to end property sales to “anonymous shell companies” in May 2016.

These countries are tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions. Private Eye, Global Witness and Transparency International have exposed for years how offshore companies hide the true identity of the buyers, allowing ‘dirty money’ to be laundered through the UK. Yet still the sales go on.

There’s no suggestion that the sales below are being used for money laundering, or even good old-fashioned corruption – the few I can identify look like UK development groups using offshore vehicles. But the problem is, we just don’t know who the buyers are – that’s the point of offshore. And most likely, nor do the public bodies doing the selling!

The government recently announced plans for a register of beneficial owners of offshore companies that own UK property. But campaigners say this is too little, too late: unless draft legislation goes to Parliament soon, the register won’t be in place till 2021.

In the meantime, and despite Theresa May also promising a ‘crackdown’ on companies’ use of offshore tax havens (£), public bodies are still merrily selling off public land – plenty of it to anonymous companies in these “sunny places for shady people”. …

The councils selling land worth millions to offshore companies

[For specific examples see the remainder of the article]

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Scrutiny, Spin

Comments

2 Comments

“Ain’t too proud to beg”

Hot on the heels of this article:

“A donation box installed on Sidmouth seafront that has been removed for maintenance will not be reinstated as the repairs are ‘too costly’.

A Freedom of Information Request submitted to the council had revealed that so far the council has received less money in donations than the cost of installing the box itself. …

… The cost of the sign and its legs were £276, and the cost of the box was £125, and the amount collected to date is £165.75, the Freedom of Information Request reveals. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/sidmouth-donation-box-cliff-fall-1416667

comes this cartoon from the current Private Eye:

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Green (local), Independent Councillors, Scrutiny

“Green Party calls for end to ‘one-party state’ councils” (and so do Independents!)

” … In a speech in south-east London, Mr Bartley – who shares the leadership with MP Caroline Lucas – said more representation for his party at local level will “build a better Britain from the bottom up”.

“We are taking the next step towards getting a Green at every table in every room – a Green on every council,” he said, claiming he could “feel change coming right across the country”.

“There’s not a seat in this country where the Greens cannot win,” he told supporters.

Voters are “tired of the status quo” of “cosy, complacent” councils dominated by just one party, he said, attacking councillors “sat down with a dozen of their mates, toeing the party line”. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43644027

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local), Planning System, Scrutiny, Sustainability, Transparency

“The Greater Exeter plan has been delayed”

Owl is STILL having difficulty understanding how the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) fits in with the Devon and Somerset Heart of the South West Strategic plan!!! So many strategies, so many plans, so many people being paid to work out how to invent what might, or more likely might not, turn out to be a wheel – though one of them MIGHT just manage to invent a square one!

“Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter City Council, in partnership with Devon County Council, are teaming up to create a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) which focuses on the creation of jobs and housing until 2040.

… A consultation on the issues that the GESP should focus on took place 12 months ago and it was initially hoped that a consultation on a draft plan would begin in January of 2018.

But publication of the draft plan has been delayed and it is now likely that the draft GESP will be published in the summer of 2018.

Explaining the delay, a statement said: “In respect of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP), and since our last Local Development Scheme was approved, there have been a number of factors which have delayed plan production.

“These include the fact that a great many sites were submitted through the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment ‘call for sites’ and these are being carefully assessed as well as further draft changes to national Government planning policy and a wish to investigate differing ways to ensure we can secure the best forms of development, including the highest quality new housing with supporting facilities, to meet our future needs.”

… The GESP will sit above District-level Local and community Neighbourhood Plans, taking a long-term strategic view to ensure important decisions about development and investment are coordinated. … “

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/greater-exeter-plan-been-delayed-1412993

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Conflict of interest, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Q: who audits the auditors? A: their pals

“The chief accountancy watchdog has hired lawyers to keep evidence confidential that might throw light on its contentious decision in 2013 not to investigate KPMG’s audit of HBOS.

Four of the auditor’s former partners were serving on the Financial Reporting Council’s conduct committee when it decided not to investigate their former firm’s role in the bank’s collapse. Another committee member had advised KPMG previously.

The FRC, which last week emphasised the importance of transparency in its workings, has appointed Fieldfisher, a law firm, to fight a tribunal appeal aimed at winning access to documents and emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

The regulator is under pressure to improve its investigatory processes after several corporate collapses where the auditors failed to spot problems. Last week Greg Clark, the business secretary, promised an independent investigation into the regulator.

Some concerned investors say that the FRC is soft on auditors because it has been “captured” by the accounting profession, with its board and decision-making committees liberally sprinkled with former Big Four accountants.

MPs described the regulator’s initial decision not to investigate KPMG as “a serious mistake”. Poor accounting and accounting rules have been cited as one reason why no one understood how bad the bank’s problems were until it was too late. The bank was rescued by Lloyds TSB with £20 billion of backing from taxpayers. Later £53 billion of its loans went sour as the extent of its reckless approach to creditors became clear.

The FRC belatedly investigated, only to find the auditor not guilty of any serious failings — triggering more astonishment from some MPs.

Margot Gibbs, a researcher originally backed by Greenpeace, is appealing against a decision by the Information Commissioner in November in order to establish how individual members of the conduct committee voted and whether there was any lobbying between KPMG partners and their former colleagues and advisers on the committee.

She also wants to challenge the FRC claim that, despite being a public body, it is largely exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The watchdog and the business department, its sponsoring ministry, have been fighting the public sector classification for 14 years.

The former KPMG partners on the ten-member conduct committee were Paul George, a partner until 1999, Sean Collins, one until 2009, Joanna Osborne, a partner until 2011, and John Kellas, one until 2004. In addition, Richard Fleck, its chairman, is a consultant with Herbert Smith, which used to advise KPMG.

The minutes of the meeting show that Ms Osborne and Mr Collins left when KPMG was discussed, according to a report into the affair published by the FRC in November last year. Mr Kellas stayed but “did not participate”. The report did not say what Mr George and Mr Fleck did, nor how anyone voted.

The FRC confirmed that it had appointed lawyers. “We took this approach, ie explaining why the request was out of scope and referring Ms Gibbs instead to information we had published in connection with her request, for consistency of treatment and fairness with all other FOI requesters whose requests are out of scope.”

Fines by the FRC last year were their highest ever at almost £15 million.

KPMG has been auditor to several leading British companies that have failed or come to close to failing, including Co-operative Bank, Carillion and Conviviality, the group behind Wine Rack and Bargain Booze.

The tribunal is due to hear the case on April 27.”

Source: The Times, paywall

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon economy, Greater Exeter, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Don’t count your (productivity) Unicorns before they hatch!

From David Daniel:

“The “Joint Committee” (representatives from 23 organisations across Devon and Somerset – political balance rules do not apply) has just endorsed the final version of the HotSW Productivity Strategy.

But would you buy the proverbial second-hand car from an organisation that takes such a cavalier attitude to presenting facts and figures? Would you trust it to invest hundreds of millions of pounds of your taxes wisely? And, if you did, would you have any faith in its ability subsequently to deliver the goods?

Let’s start with the press release statement: “The Productivity Strategy aims to double productivity in the area over 20 years”. It does no such thing. The maximum claimed productivity gain in the strategy is to jump from a currently “assumed” 1.7% local annual productivity growth (probably nearer 1.5%) to 2.2%. No doubling here even if you accumulate the change over 20 years. For interest, historic average UK productivity growth rate is 2.0% and in the league table of LEPs, HotSW ranks 32nd out of 37 (London and South East dominate).

The 20 year timescale is a bit fuzzy as well. The introduction to the adopted strategy says: “Our ambition is simple – to double the size of the economy over 20 years.” In the consultation draft, however, it said: “Our ambition is simple – to double the economy in 18 years.” So which is it? On page 36 the Productivity Strategy is clearly marked (as it was in the consultation draft) 2018 to 2036, and none of the other numbers has changed. In my book that is 18 years, not 20!

Anyhow, what is being doubled is not productivity but the size of the economy (a combination of growth in both productivity and employment). Except the economy won’t be doubled using any of the combinations of growth in productivity and employment mentioned in the strategy, in either 18 or 20 years. The best on offer is a 3% compound growth. If that started instantaneously this year, and it obviously won’t, it would yield 70% growth in 18 years or 80% in 20 years. To double the economy, a compound growth rate of 3.94% (4%) would be required. Long term average UK growth rate is 2.6%.

It is proposed to achieve this 3% economic growth by “holding” employment growth to 0.8% per annum (add 2.2% productivity growth to 0.8% employment growth = 3%). We are effectively at full employment now. The Office for National Statistic population projections do show the South West population as a whole growing over this period at around 0.8% (0.76%) per annum. However, we have an ageing population and the annual increase of those classified as of working age is only 0.16% (16 to 64 for all genders). This will leave a shortfall of around 83,000 workers by the end of 18 years. Pension age is increasing to 66 by 2020 and to 67 between 2028 and 2028. Even if all 65 to 69 year olds are added to the work force they would not make up the shortfall. They would probably not be at the cutting edge of productivity either. So the plan can only work with major inward migration. This could be difficult in the post Brexit world.

Having ambition is one thing; plucking numbers out of the air and throwing them around without regard to the real world is quite another. There is no discussion of how long the transition from the slow to fast lane might take, delivery considerations come later. The hype assumes instantaneous change. How can anyone take this seriously?

Perhaps the members of HotSW and the Joint Committee believe they will all be long gone in 18 or 20 years and can’t be held to account. But what they have signed up to is so dramatic that failure will very soon become apparent. Brexit, surprisingly, might herald a refocussing of minds as suggested by Philip Aldrick, economics editor The Times, 20 March:
“….One theory doing the rounds is that the Treasury wants to know if its business support schemes are working. A crunch is coming. England’s 39 local enterprise partnerships, designed to boost growth, are funded largely with EU grants. For 2014 to 2020, they secured €6.51 billion of European Structural and Investment funds. Of that, €2.5 billion was allocated to “enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises”, about a tenth of which went to less developed regions.”

“After Brexit, now formally delayed until 2021 after yesterday’s transition deal, the money will no longer make the round trip via Brussels. It will come directly from Westminster, bringing with it more political accountability. If the money is not driving productivity, which it patently isn’t, the Treasury may decide the financial medicine could be administered more effectively.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Voting

“Cambridge Analytica files spell out election tactics” – one of which was “persuade people NOT to vote”

The files were released by the UK’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

They detail some of the work undertaken by Cambridge Analytica and companies it has been linked with, including SCL Group, Global Science Research and Aggregate IQ.

“In one document, SCL said that encouraging people “not to vote” might be more effective than trying to motivate swing voters.

Describing its work in a Nigerian election, SCL Global said it had advised that “rather than trying to motivate swing voters to vote for our clients, a more effective strategy might be to persuade opposition voters not to vote at all”.

It said this had been achieved by “organising anti-election rallies on the day of polling in opposition strongholds” and using “local religious figures to maximise their appeal especially among the spiritual, rural communities”.

It boasted of devising a political graffiti campaign to create a youth “movement” in Trinidad and Tobago and of disseminating “campaign messages that, whilst ostensibly coming from the youth, were unattributable to any specific party”. It said as a result “a united youth movement was created”.
In Latvia, it said it had recognised that “unspoken ethnic tensions” were “at the heart of the election”.

“The locals secretly blamed the Russians for stealing their jobs… armed with this knowledge, SCL was able to reflect these real issues in its client’s messaging,” the document said.

The files spell out how SCL helped the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office “in strategic planning to counter violent jihadism” in Pakistan.

“I wouldn’t only recommend them, I’d work with them again in an instant,” wrote an official, whose name has been redacted.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43581892

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Our Local Enterprise Partnership’s favourite project ringing alarm bells

Not what our nuclear-linked LEP board members want to hear:

“The UK nuclear regulator has raised concerns with EDF Energy over management failings that it warns could affect safety at the Hinkley Point C power station if left unaddressed, official documents reveal.

Britain’s chief nuclear inspector identified several shortcomings in the way the French firm is managing the supply chain for the £20bn plant it is building in Somerset.

Though not serious enough alone to raise regulatory issues, together they “may indicate a broader deficiency” in the way the company is run, concluded Mark Foy, chief inspector at the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

In October and November 2017, a team of 11 inspectors led by Foy visited the Hinkley site, EDF facilities in Bristol and Paris, and a French factory making parts for the plant.

The visits were triggered by the regulator’s concerns that EDF did not have sufficient oversight of the Creusot nuclear forge in France, where records have been found to be falsified.

A summary of the inspections, published by the ONR earlier this month, judged EDF’s supply chain management to be improving but below standard in some areas.

The full reports, released to the Guardian under freedom of information rules, paint a critical picture. They show that:

The ONR was concerned that EDF’s internal oversight and governance had not identified the shortcomings at the forge

Stuart Crook, Hinkley Point C managing director, admitted that EDF, not the ONR, should have spotted those shortcomings first

a lack of resources meant EDF did not undertake an internal audit of its quality control processes during 2017. Foy said this was “disappointing” as it might have picked up problems

On safety, the report said that: “Throughout this … inspection, themes have emerged that relate to both improvements in NNB GenCo’s [the EDF subsidiary building Hinkley] processes and to shortfalls in management system arrangements that, if unresolved, have the potential to affect safety.”

EDF’s own assessment of how it managed Hinkley’s supply chain had discovered shortfalls that could affect safety, the regulator found. The ONR also felt that the company’s plan for improving its self-assessment process was inadequate.

Moreover, they said that it was not clear who at EDF was managing quality control on the supply chain.

Interviews with EDF’s contractors for the Hinkley project, which include civil engineering groups Kier BAM and Bylor, also found that EDF had not done enough to pass on information about the failings at the Creusot forge to its suppliers.

However, the regulator said it was confident the company could make improvements ahead of the next key regulatory milestone for the power station, in August 2018. Overall, EDF was found to be operating within the UK’s exacting nuclear regulations.

“Current arrangements for the control of quality are judged, through ONR’s wider regulatory activities, to be appropriate at present,” said Foy.

Experts said the inspection’s conclusions were significant, as nuclear regulation language is usually restrained.

Paul Dorfman, of the Energy Institute at University College London, said: “Looking at this report with a practiced eye, you can see that the UK regulators are worried, and things aren’t necessarily going to get any better.

“In all things nuclear, safety is absolutely paramount. The fact that the UK nuclear regulator says that these problems could affect safety is very significant.”

EDF said it was already implementing improvement measures where required ahead of an increase in construction activity at the site. The company was also completing the outstanding internal quality assurance programme.

A spokesperson said: “The chief nuclear inspector’s report recognises that the current quality control arrangements for Hinkley Point C are appropriate.”

There are about 3,500 people working on the site at the moment, a number that is expected to peak at around 6,000 in 18 months, when construction is due to be at full throttle.

The power station should provide around 7% of the UK’s electricity and is due to switch on in 2025, though EDF has warned the project may run 15 months over schedule.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/25/nuclear-watchdog-raises-hinkley-point-c-concerns

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny, Transparency

Should Randall-Johnson remain chair of the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee (or even be a councillor at all?)

We all know our problems with Randall-Johnson as Chair of DCC’s Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee (or, if not, we should). Here are just a few of many Owl posts on this councillor and her behaviour as its Chair:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/12/conduct-of-health-committee-members-investigated-by-devon-council-diviani-and-randall-johnson-heavily-criticised-for-behaviour/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/06/24/claire-wrights-report-on-the-disgraceful-dcc-nhs-meeting-and-its-disgraceful-chairing-by-sarah-randall-johnson/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/31/councillor-calls-for-randall-johnson-resignation/

NOW, it seems, she was EXTREMELY reluctant to allow the CCG’s Sustainability and Transformation Plans to be a standing item on her committee’s agenda and inly the intervention of a “committee adviser” led to this being agreed. See Claire Wright’s blog for details:

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/sustainability_and_transformation_cuts_plan_agreed_to_be_an_item_on_every_h

“… Essentially, the NHS in Devon is looking at a £500m overspend by 2020 unless major cuts and centralisation of services take place.

It is absolutely vital that the committee keeps a very close eye on what cuts are to be made and how this is affecting patients. We are their only ears and eyes on this.

When I made this proposal yesterday – that we receive a detailed report at each committee meeting. Chair, Sara Randall Johnson appeared to be reluctant to introduce such a standing item, given all the other issues that needed to be examined.

I could not see her point of view at all. Surely, this is the most important issue facing Devon’s patients today?

Committee adviser, Anthony Farnsworth suggested that councillors have sight of the CCG’s own financial reports relating to the STP on a regular basis and this was a legitimate area of scrutiny. …

This was agreed.

Here’s the webcast – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/318671

What is this woman’s problem? Is it simply that she knee-jerks a “no” on any and every proposal from Independent Claire Wright” – putting personalities before what is best for Devon, its healthcare and its scrutiny? We know she has problems with Ms Wright’s forthright defence of our NHS against cuts and privatisation (though the problem seems to stem from further back when the then Leader of East Devon District Council was ousted from her seat by the likeable, knowledgeable and planning policies aware winning candidate – Claire Wright).

Or is it even more dangerous than that? Putting HER personal political beliefs and ideology above those of others – including moderate DCC Tory councillors – and forcing them on others by whatever means she has at her disposal?

Questions, so many questions, and so few answers.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Scrutiny, Transparency

“The Case for Public Consultation Hearings”

“In its latest Briefing Paper, the Institute argues the case for Public Consultation Hearings. In the recommended format, organisations undertaking a consultation will provide the opportunity for selected consultees to appear before decision-makers and give their evidence and their viewpoint – a little like Parliamentary Select Committees.

It is not a new idea, but there are important reasons why the time is right to consider these forms of dialogue:

People are heartily fed up with perfunctory, tick-in-the box forms of dialogue, especially simplistic online surveys with questions like ‘Do you agree with us that we should revise the regulations …. Blah blah.? ‘ Serious stakeholders want a better level of debate that considers issues properly. Public hearings can help.

We have to tackle what can be described on the week of Stephen Hawkins’ death) as the consultation ‘black hole’ It is where respondents make a submission or reply to a consultation but have no idea what happens to their views. Does anyone read them? Are they considered? If so, by whom. It is as if responses disappear down a black home never to reappear. Public hearings are one way to demonstrate that consultors listen!

All the emphasis is now on digital dialogues, and they have many fine features that encourage participation by large numbers who might not have responded using traditional methods. Public hearings can be a welcome antidote to the de-personalisation of electronic media – where real people can be seen to sit down and discuss evidence. Video-streaming can make this visible and transparent to far wider audiences, and be living proof that consultation is really taking place.

The Briefing Paper looks at the role of evidence in public debate, and the need for participants in consultations to evidence their claims and assertions. It then presents the arguments in favour of public hearings, and explores whether they might work in the context of public consultations. For existing public engagement practitioners, the most valuable section may well be on the practicalities of organising a programme of hearings and the challenges that might need to be overcome.

Our conclusion is that where there is a considerable amount of public interest, or where the subject-matter is deeply controversial, they will help convince sceptical communities that decision-makers care enough to explore the issues openly and in public. There is even a case for holding events like this well before a consultation is launched. A pre-consultation exploration of key issues and an opportunity for stakeholder to spell out what they would like to see considered might be a first-rate way of involving the public. Used in this way, hearings can even form part of a co-production approach.

Make your own mind up by reading the latest ‘Briefing Paper 35’ which you can view here if you are member. Alternatively contact Rebecca Wright to request a copy if you are not a member, or would like Institute Associates to help prepare a programme of Public Consultation Hearings for your own organisation.”

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/tackling-the-black-hole-of-consultation/